Jeremy Corbyn.

[Gwylan]

Labour hinted that taxes may have to rise a penny in the pound if certain public services were to be helped. The greedy ****ers who were on board up till then then ran to the Tories. That's why Corbyn won't get in........... Socialism takes from the well off to support the less well off. I know , I know what a repugnant idea.

I knew that Labour had lost the 1992 on the day before the election: I heard two cleaners on London Underground discussing the vote and both declared that they'd vote Tory. If two of the lowest paid workers in London were worried about tax rises (and they'd have had none under the Labour plans) then the jig was up for Kinnock.

I believe the same fear applies now: which is why the Tories will win whoever is Labour leader but there may be rather more have-nots by 2025

 

[beorhthelm]

Well ok we elect an MP. But the point still stands.
I agree STV is better, though I wouldn't mind pure PR. Most MPs seem to just follow the party line and not vote according to their constituents wishes anyway, so we wouldn't be any worse off because of that!

firstly, you cant have full PR on a constituency seat basis as we current have, so you have to overhaul the whole political system (there might be an case to do so, but this needs to be understood). secondly, you wouldnt have Jeremy Corbyn under PR, the party machine wouldnt allow them on the lists.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

firstly, you cant have full PR on a constituency seat basis as we current have, so you have to overhaul the whole political system (there might be an case to do so, but this needs to be understood). secondly, you wouldnt have Jeremy Corbyn under PR, the party machine wouldnt allow them on the lists.

The German version of PR allows for a proportion of directly elected regional MPs.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Ive been trying to work out how the voting will go:

If the current order keeps the same:

1st Round:

Corbyn - 42
Cooper - 23
Burnham - 20
-----------------------------
Kendall - 14 Once she is eliminated where will the 14 'points' (second preferences go)

2nd Round

Corbyn 43
Cooper - 29.5
--------------
Burnham 26.5

3rd Round - 26.5% of votes to be redistributed

Corbyn 51 (+ 8)
Cooper 49 (22.5) -

Just shows how fragmented the Labour party could become if Corbyn wins, gaining only 9% of 'second' ballots and nearly half the party opposing his ideology.

If Cooper or Burnham was to drop out - that would stop Corbyn IMO

Key statistic now is simply the % Corbyn gets, the MORI independent poll put him on 43, ending 53/47.
It seems getting 43+ wins it & 41 loses.
(In an extreme situation 3 candidates polling just 17% each could pip his 49%, a ludicrous state of affairs. Also this system means that Corbyns 2nd choices inc 50% abstentions are at no point used, whereas all the others candidates are, bizarre)
However, I don't think his standing has gone down since the MORI, poll almost certainly up, also with new registrations daily benefitting JC more than the others

 

[Hastings gull]

I knew that Labour had lost the 1992 on the day before the election: I heard two cleaners on London Underground discussing the vote and both declared that they'd vote Tory. If two of the lowest paid workers in London were worried about tax rises (and they'd have had none under the Labour plans) then the jig was up for Kinnock.

I believe the same fear applies now: which is why the Tories will win whoever is Labour leader but there may be rather more have-nots by 2025

Strangely, this sort of thing was what I witnessed prior to this election. The group that meets for dog walking every morning contains two what you might refer to as solid Labour supporters. One said that on this occasion that he would vote Tory because he did not like Miliband, and the other was wavering. This chap has a wife who works in the local hospital and said that she too was tired of Miliband, yet you might have thought, nasty party and all that, that she would be diehard Labour. I do recall thinking that this could well be happening elsewhere, and so whilst all the polls indicated a hung parliament, I was, therefore, not too surprised at the eventual outcome. Obviously this is not too scientific, but when I speculated that Miliband might not make it, this was dismissed by experts living abroad.

 

[Questions]

I knew that Labour had lost the 1992 on the day before the election: I heard two cleaners on London Underground discussing the vote and both declared that they'd vote Tory. If two of the lowest paid workers in London were worried about tax rises (and they'd have had none under the Labour plans) then the jig was up for Kinnock.

I believe the same fear applies now: which is why the Tories will win whoever is Labour leader but there may be rather more have-nots by 2025

Cleaners you say ? Oh I didn't know two cleaners had deserted Labour as well. Sort of throws my argument out of the window then.

I agree with your last sentiments entirely, mores the pity.

 

[looney]

Polls always over estimate Labour and always ignore the obvious reason. The Unemployed and shiftless are more available by phone etc to say they will vote themselves more money.

 

[Gwylan]

Strangely, this sort of thing was what I witnessed prior to this election. The group that meets for dog walking every morning contains two what you might refer to as solid Labour supporters. One said that on this occasion that he would vote Tory because he did not like Miliband, and the other was wavering. This chap has a wife who works in the local hospital and said that she too was tired of Miliband, yet you might have thought, nasty party and all that, that she would be diehard Labour. I do recall thinking that this could well be happening elsewhere, and so whilst all the polls indicated a hung parliament, I was, therefore, not too surprised at the eventual outcome. Obviously this is not too scientific, but when I speculated that Miliband might not make it, this was dismissed by experts living abroad.

I wasn't surprised either: I didn't believe any of the predictions that it was close and knew that Tories would end up close to overall majority (the size of it did surprise me though). My regret is that, unlike in 1992, I didn't have a couple of quid on it. But I do get the same feeling with Corbyn, I've heard a couple of people who are not natural Labour supporters say they like him - so I don't think the polls are wildly out in this instance

 

[East Preston Gull]

I am far away from being a lefty but this can only be good for politics. We will have a clear choice of left wing and right wing. For too many years the Labour party have tried to reach out to Britain and change policy to become electable. They should have their values and persuade voters to join them. I am a tory voter but the so called centre ground, never works. Corbyn's labour left or Cameron's conservative right, the choice is ours.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Liking his views on the EU. And given his thoughts on making stuff, and today's much disappointing manufacturing figures, he's ticking a lot of Tubthumper boxes.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Ladbrokes now make Jez favourite @ 6/4, Burnham 13/8 & Cooper 9/4
Cannot ever recall someone 17 points ahead on an independent poll being available at 4/1 & 3/1 etc for a week after

 

[5ways]

I am far away from being a lefty but this can only be good for politics. We will have a clear choice of left wing and right wing. For too many years the Labour party have tried to reach out to Britain and change policy to become electable. They should have their values and persuade voters to join them. I am a tory voter but the so called centre ground, never works. Corbyn's labour left or Cameron's conservative right, the choice is ours.

The first job of a political party is to get elected.The centre-ground is the only thing that works. David Cameron firmly positioned himself there in 2010 and it worked. Blair dominated the centre-ground, which went pretty well too.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I am far away from being a lefty but this can only be good for politics. We will have a clear choice of left wing and right wing. For too many years the Labour party have tried to reach out to Britain and change policy to become electable. They should have their values and persuade voters to join them. I am a tory voter but the so called centre ground, never works. Corbyn's labour left or Cameron's conservative right, the choice is ours.

This.

 

[soistes]

Ladbrokes now make Jez favourite @ 6/4, Burnham 13/8 & Cooper 9/4
Cannot ever recall someone 17 points ahead on an independent poll being available at 4/1 & 3/1 etc for a week after

Presumably that's because he's not 17 points ahead on the second ballot (after redistribution of the others' second preferences), but only 2 points ahead.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Presumably that's because he's not 17 points ahead on the second ballot (after redistribution of the others' second preferences), but only 2 points ahead.

This last poll was 'private' the Mirror won't say by whom but either Burnham's or Cooper's camps. The independent poll had him 6 clear last week & he's outperformed numbers and interviews wise since then

 

[Sweeney Todd]

I would love it if Labour elected Corbyn as leader. It would be like seeing Palace appoint Alex McLeish as manager.

 

[Gwylan]

The first job of a political party is to get elected.The centre-ground is the only thing that works. David Cameron firmly positioned himself there in 2010 and it worked. Blair dominated the centre-ground, which went pretty well too.

As Cameron has moved rightwards pretty swiftly, a Corbyn-led Labour party would move left leaving the LibDems with the centre ground to themselves. You may think that the LDs will win the next election but I don't think you'll find many people agreeing with you.

If go back through post-war politics, the centre ground has never done particularly well as we've swung between Tories and Labour, the Blair years were a bit of an aberration, not in line with anything that went before

 

[Seagull27]

The first job of a political party is to get elected.The centre-ground is the only thing that works. David Cameron firmly positioned himself there in 2010 and it worked. Blair dominated the centre-ground, which went pretty well too.

I wholeheartedly disagree, and it is this that is what I think is the biggest problem the Labour party has at the moment. The job of a political party is to represent a set of moral and political values that are held by its members and voters. If it proves that one of those policies isn't held by the majority of the public, they shouldn't abandon that policy (providing its members still support it) - they should be doing their best to persuade the rest of the public to what they see as the correct view. Even if it means they don't get elected into Government, they should still stick by the values they (and their members/voters) believe in and fight for them.

Otherwise you end up with two parties that are fighting for the same voters using similar policies. When one of those parties isn't trusted due to previous (perceived) mistakes, then of course the other will be elected.

 

[Hotchilidog]

I wholeheartedly disagree, and it is this that is what I think is the biggest problem the Labour party has at the moment. The job of a political party is to represent a set of moral and political values that are held by its members and voters. If it proves that one of those policies isn't held by the majority of the public, they shouldn't abandon that policy (providing its members still support it) - they should be doing their best to persuade the rest of the public to what they see as the correct view. Even if it means they don't get elected into Government, they should still stick by the values they (and their members/voters) believe in and fight for them.

Otherwise you end up with two parties that are fighting for the same voters using similar policies. When one of those parties isn't trusted due to previous (perceived) mistakes, then of course the other will be elected.

Absolutely this. It is for this reason that a lot of voters feel the Labour Party has left them.

 

[beorhthelm]

I wholeheartedly disagree, and it is this that is what I think is the biggest problem the Labour party has at the moment. The job of a political party is to represent a set of moral and political values that are held by its members and voters. If it proves that one of those policies isn't held by the majority of the public, they shouldn't abandon that policy (providing its members still support it) - they should be doing their best to persuade the rest of the public to what they see as the correct view. Even if it means they don't get elected into Government, they should still stick by the values they (and their members/voters) believe in and fight for them.

Otherwise you end up with two parties that are fighting for the same voters using similar policies. When one of those parties isn't trusted due to previous (perceived) mistakes, then of course the other will be elected.

this boils down to: political party must represent views... if a policy isn't supported by a majority, it should persuade them its right. i cant tell if this is contradiction, self-righteousness, or both. this is all well and good, very nice to have highbrow, theoretical politics, if you want to govern and actually implement some policy for those you represent, then you must gain power.

though it has been interesting seeing this view bubble upto the surface, its seems a lot on the left genuinely would rather hold ideals than power. I'd rather a mix.